Skip to main content

Full text of "Tools for top physics at D0"

See other formats


Tools for top physics at DO 

■_v-, A. Harel on behalf of the DO coUaboration. 

O . 

Q , Proceedings of talk given at the 

CN ■ International Workshop on Top Quark Physics May 22, 2008 



, Abstract 

'NT 

^Sl . Top quark measurements rely on the jet energy calibration and often 

on 6-quark identification. We discuss these and other tools and how they 
apply to top quark analyses at DO. In particular some of the nuances that 
result from DO's data driven approach to these issues are presented. 



(N 



X 
D 

^: 

'^ . 1 Jet energy calibration 

Jet detection at DO is based on three finely segmented liquid-argon and uranium 

calorimeters, hosted in a central barrel and two end caps, that provide nearly 

^ I full solid-angle coverage [1]. The calorimeters offer a stable response with good 

energy resolution. Their total depth is more than 7.2 interaction lengths. In Run 
Qv [ II of the Fermilab Tevatron Collider, DO calorimeters collect charge within a time 

^T) • window of 260 ns. They are partially compensating, with an electromagnetic 

response that is (roughly) 1.2 to 1.9 times higher than the hadronic response. 
f~^ ■ The region between the barrel and the end caps contains scintillator-based 

00 , detectors that supplement the coverage of the main calorimeters. Jet reconstruc- 

^D ' tion in this region is inferior due to the complicated geometry of the detectors 

and the large amount of passive material (e.g. cryostat walls), but these ef- 
fects are easily accommodated within the data-driven techniques used in DO, 
. , for example, the jet energy calibration described in this section, 

j^ ■ Calorimeter readouts are grouped into pseudo-pro jective towers focused on 

the nominal interaction point for reconstruction purposes. The energies de- 
posited in calorimeter towers are then clustered into jets using the Run II it- 
erative seed-based cone-jet algorithm including mid-points [2] with cone radius 

TZ = y {5y) + (Scf)) = 0.5 in rapidity y and azimuthal angle (/)■ 

The measured jet energies (E'cai) are calibrated to match (on average) the 
energies at particle level (-Eptci)- By "particle level" we refer to produced par- 
ticles before they interact with material in the detector. This calibration is 
usually described in terms of a multiplicative scaling factor known as the jet 
energy scale (JES = Eptd/Ecai) [3]. DO parametrizes the calibrations for data 



X 















% 




: D0 Run II 




RCONE 


=0.5 - 


o 


25 




















>. 




:^ 


NP*1MI 






O) 






NP+2M1 






^ 












0} 


20 




- - NP^3MI 






c 












LU 












"S 


15 


-^, ' -^ 






./ '- 


0} 












^ 












o 


10 


' ■■'■-■>. 






'■^' r- 




5 


7*^^ ■ '^V'- 




,''■'■■■ 


^,>-_ 






"^~-- ■-■-■■'■■■- 


.-■- ,---' 












rrriVrTf ."rrrrr. 








° -3 -2 


-1 1 


2 


^,e. 













Figure 1: offset energy within the jet for different primary vertex muhiphcities, 
as a function of jet pseudorapidity. 



and simulation (MC) as 



^ptcl = 57; ■ febias, (,-1-j 



RS 



where the terms are as follows: 



• the offset energy, O, is the energy not associated to the hard scatter: noise, 
pile-up, and multiple collisions. Note that beam remnants and multiple 
parton interactions (in the same collision) are not included. It is calculated 
based on the energy density measured in data from regions outside jets, as 
a function of the number of primary vertices (PVs) reconstructed in the 
event (see fig 1). 

• the response, i?, is the fraction of particle jet energy deposited in the 
calorimeter by the particles. It is measured in three steps. First the photon 
energy scale is calibrated with Z — *■ e+e^ data and with a detector sim- 
ulation specifically tuned to reproduce electromagnetic showering, which 
is used to translate between electron and photon energy scales. Then the 
response in the central region is calibrated with photon-|-jet events as a 
function of the jet energy. Finally the response is extrapolated to other 
regions using dijet events with a central jet. 

• the detector showering correction, S", accounts for energy flow in and out 
of the calorimeter jet due to detector effects (finite calorimeter tower and 
hadron shower size, magnetic field). Detector showering is estimated by 
fitting energy profile templates to the data. The templates are derived 
from the simulation, one describes energy in particles that belong to the 
jet, and the other the energy in particles that do not belong to the jet. 

• /^bias represents corrections for biases of the method, which are derived by 
comparing measured and desired values of the O and i? terms in various 
MC samples. 



c 0.14 

'm 

I 0.12 

i 0.1 

gO.08 

Z 0.06 

1^ 0.04 

0.02 





D0 Run II 

- Total 

■Response 

■Showering 

Offset 



67 10 20 30 



100 



200 

cuncorr 



ETX' (GeV) 



10.14r 

S0-12r 
o 

gO.OSr 
BO.OOr^ 

(B 

i 0.04 r 
0.02 7 



D0 Run II 

= Q-5. T,j„ = 2.0, :Y+iet 
-Total 
■Response 
Sfiowering ■ : 

Offset 



' 6 78910 



20 30 40 50 



^rjet 



100 

(GeV) 



Figure 2: Fractional jet energy scale uncertainty for jets in data at eta=0.0 (left) 
and eta=2.0 (right), as a function of uncorrected jet transverse energy. 



For central jets, the resulting JES decreases as a function of the jet energy 
from about 1.8 in data and 1.6 in simulation for 15 GeV jets, to about 1.2 for 
the most energetic jets observed. For forward jets the scales are a bit higher, 
but the structure is similar. The resulting uncertainties (shown in fig 2) for 
central jets with transverse momenta (pt) of 30-120 GeV are about 1%. This 
unprecedented precision covers most of the jet kinematics required for top quark 
measurements. In that region, several components have comparable uncertain- 
ties; in other regions the uncertainties on the response are bigger and dominate 
the total uncertainty. 

The jet energy scale benefits top analyses in several ways. The most direct 
gain is that the JES puts jets collected at different regions of the detector and 
with different instantaneous luminosities on an equal footing. This improves the 
energy resolution and simplifies the analyses. Another gain is that it puts jets 
from data and MC on an equal footing. In fact, for almost all top analyses [4], it 
is only the relative (data over MC) JES that matters, rather than the absolute 
JES. For example, top cross section analyses (e.g. [5] or [6]) require the JES to 
calculate the signal selection efficiency, which is taken from the MC. Similarly, 
top quark mass (mt) measurements [7] use the MC's QCD modeling to translate 
the observed W boson and top quark mass peaks to their nominal (parton-level) 
masses, and it is exactly in that translation that the relative JES is required. 

The importance of the jet energy scale in top analyses can be quantified by 
examining the impact of its uncertainties. Though the JES is known to about 
1%, the resulting uncertainties in top cross section measurements are about 50% 
of the total systematic uncertainties. For mt measurements they dominate the 
total systematic uncertainty. 

The final JES measurement, for the first 1 fb~^ of DO data, is in some sense 
too precise: the uncertainty is so small that it is not directly applicable within 
its errors to jets from any but the photon plus jet sample. A detailed example, 
from the inclusive jet cross section measurement [8], is the dijet energy scale. 
Since the hadronic response is particularly low (relative to the electromagnetic 
response used to calibrate the calorimeter) at low energies, and jets initiated 
by gluons have more particles and hence lower energies per particle than jets 




20 30 40 50 60 100 



200 300 400 



P, [GeV/c] 



Figure 3: Estimated difference in response for jets from photon+jct and QCD 
dijet sample. 



initiated by quarks, the overall calorimeter response to gluon-initiated jets is 
about 5% lower than the response to quark jets. At low p^, the dijet sample 
is dominated by gluon-initiated jets while the photon plus jet sample, on which 
the basic JES was measured, is dominated by quark-initiated jets. This leads to 
a w 5% correction of the JES when applying it to low pT jets in a dijet sample 
(see fig 3), which is much larger than the uncertainty on the JES itself. 

When applying the JES to top quark samples, additional complications ap- 
pear. The relative JES might differ between light and b jets, due to their 
different particle content (and spectra). For our latest rrit measurement this 
is the leading systematic uncertainty since we fit both rrit and an overall JES 
to the data. The fitted JES is essentially from the light jets that make up the 
observed W boson mass peak, but the fitted mt depends strongly on the energy 
scale for the jet initiated by the b quark from the t -^ bW decay. 

Another complication is that the JES is defined as 



JES (i^cal) 






(2) 



where ii^ptci (^cai) is an unbiased estimator of the corresponding particle-level jet 
energy. This definition is rooted in QCD measurements, and implicitly includes 
a bias appropriate to them: in a steeply falling spectrum a symmetric finite 
resolution causes a bias as more events migrate into each Ecai bin from the 
heavily populated bin with slightly lower- i?cai than from the sparsely populated 
bin with slightly higher- ii^cai- The bias depends on the sample, and also on 
the resolution. Thus the energy resolution and the sample (photon plus jet) 
are implicit in the JES definition. The former is particularly problematic for 
DO since the simulated jet resolutions are better than those observed in data. 
The different resolutions are of course accounted for in analyses, but they also 
imply a different JES bias in data and MC since the jet resolutions can only be 
measured (and calibrated) after the JES is applied. 

This raises the question: Is this the best JES definition for top physics? 
After all, the slope and resolution bias is almost irrelevant for top samples due 



to the fairly flat jet energy spectra. Why should we introduce this complication 
via the JES? An alternative definition of the JES to be considered is: 

-C/dct (.-C'ptcU 

where -Edct (-Eptci) is an unbiased estimator of the corresponding detector-level 
jet energy. Such a definition is independent of sample and energy resolution, 
can easily be applied to data (using the inverse function), and will improve 
the clarity of our papers: currently a "20 GeV" jet in a DO top quark sample 
corresponds on average to about 21 GeV at particle level due to the sample 
dependent bias discussed above. 



2 Missing transverse energy likelihood 

The presence of non-interacting particles, such as neutrinos, in an event can be 
inferred from an imbalance in the transverse components of the total momenta 
of the observable particles. In practice, we measure the imbalance observed in 
the calorimeter and refer to it as the missing transverse energy (MET). Cuts 
on MET are used to enrich samples in top events with a leptonically decaying 
W boson. But due to the finite energy resolutions multijet events can have a 
sizable fake MET and are an important and difficult background in many top 
analyses. 

The MET-based background rejection is improved by determining the MET 
resolution for each event based on the detailed resolutions of the objects (jets, 
electrons and unclustered energy) reconstructed in the event. We then construct 
a log likelihood inspired discriminating variable, that is the log of the probability 
that the entire MET is a mismeasurement. The construction also incorporates 
a "soft" limit on high log likelihood values (see fig 4) . This MET likelihood is a 
key tool in DCs top pair cross section measurement in the r plus jets channel [9]. 

3 b tagging 

The identification of jets containing b quarks is primarily used in top analyses to 
suppress background, as the top signal contains b jets, while most backgrounds 
do not. An example is shown in fig 5. b ID is also used to assign partons to jets, 
often in conjunction with kinematic information. This is particularly needed in 
the fully-hadronic top pair decay channel where 90 jet-parton assignments are 
possible for the canonical 6 jet events. The average number of c jets in these 
events is 1, so that c-jet rejection is very useful when analyzing this channel. 

The typical lifetime of a _B hadron is 1 ps, and due to time dilation it can 
travel a few millimeters before its decay. Here are the four basic ^-tagging 
algorithms that are used in DO, the first three are based on the B hadron 
lifetime. 



CO 600 




L=0.9 fb 




D0 Data 

tt 

other 
W+jets 
Multijet 



Missing E likelihood 



1 >2 

Number of tagged jets 



Figure 4: ^t likelihood for multijet 
dominated data (dashed black), W 
plus jets (solid blue), and tt ^ tv + 
jets (finely dashed red). 



Figure 5: Predicted and observed 
number of events as a function of the 
number of b tags, for a typical top pair 
selection with 4 or more jets [6]. 



• The secondary vertex tagger (SVT) builds up track-based jets, and for 
each one it selects tracks with high impact parameter and attempts to 
build secondary vertices (SVs) from the selected tracks. For each SV it 
calculates the decay length significance S [L^y) = L„j/(y (L^y), where L^y 
is the visible decay length (the z coordinate of the primary vertex is known 
to a much lesser accuracy), and a is its fitted uncertainty. It then tags 
calorimeter jets matched within Ai? < 0.4 to a track-jet with an SV with 
S{Lxy) above some cut. In what follows the cut is S{Lxy) > 3. 

• The counting signed impact parameter tagger (CSIP) is based on the 
tracks' impact parameter (IP) significance 5* (IP) = IP /a (IP). S'(IP) 
is a signed quantity, positive when the track's point of closest approach 
to the PV is in the hemisphere defined around the track's reconstructed 
momentum with its origin at the PV. A jet is tagged as a 6 jet if it has at 
least 2 tracks with ^(IP) > 3, or if it has at least 3 tracks with S'(IP) > 2. 

• The jet lifetime probability tagger (JLIP) translates each track's ^(IP) 
value into a probability that the track originated at the PV, and then 
combines those probabilities into a jet-wide probability. 

• The soft lepton tag (SLT) is based on B hadron decay properties rather 
than on B hadron lifetime. B hadrons often decay into muons {B {b — > iiX) 
11%), and since for reconstructed b jets ruf, << E^ the muons are usually 
collinear with the jet. A jet is assigned an SLT if a muon is reconstructed 
within the jet. This tagger is very easy to model and yields low systematic 
uncertainties that are completely different than those that dominate the 
tracking based taggers. It also identifies if the jet contained a b quark or 



antiquark, which can be useful [10]. 

To combine the information from the three tracking tags, we feed their out- 
puts into a neural network (NN) trained to discriminate between b jets and light 
jets. The dominant NN inputs are the decay length significance of the SV, the 
weighted combination of the tracks' IP significance, and the JLIP output. At a 
typical working point, the NN tagger tags « 50% of the b jets, « 10% of the c 
jets, and « 0.5% of the light jets. 

Since the performance of the tagging algorithm is difficult to simulate, it 
is taken from data [11]. It is split into two parts: taggability, which is the 
probability that enough tracks were reconstructed (within AR — 0.5 from the 
jet center) to b tag the jet, and a tagging rate (TR), that is an efficiency for 
b and c jets and a fake rate for light jets, given that there are enough tracks 
reconstructed to b tag the jet. 

The taggability depends strongly on the z-coordinate of the PV, as the PV 
may lie outside the fiducial volume of the DO silicon tracker. Since all jets in an 
event are reconstructed as having the same PV, this results in a large correlation 
between the jets which must be described. 

The heavy flavor TRs given that the jet is taggable are measured using 
two base samples with different b jet contents: an inclusive sample of jets that 
contain a muon (n) and a subsample of such jets that are back to back in 
azimuth to a 6-tagged jet (p). Two almost uncorrelated 5-tagging algorithms 
are used: the track based algorithm under study and the SLT algorithm which 
requires a muon within the jet. The efficiencies are factorized into a function of 
Pt multiplied by a function of 77, and for each px or 77 bin we have: 



• 



eight event counts: n, p, n^^, p^'^ , n^, p^, n^^'^^, and p^'^^t^^ 

'b ' ^non-b^ ^b 



• eight variables: Ub, Unon-b, Pb, Pnon-b, e^ , eL„_h, <^b^, and e^j^_j„ where 



• 



the es are efficiencies, and 

eight equations, such as n = Ub + Unon-b- The equations also contain 4 
corrections for possible correlations that are taken from the MC. 

For each bin the solution of this equation system yields the TRs for jets that 
contain muons. This is done for both data and MC, and the MC is used to 
extrapolate the tag rates for all jets: 



rpp MCrpT>data,^ 
rppdata ^^b ^^b { a\ 



rjip MCrppdata,^ 

Similarly, fake rates (TR;) are measured in data using various negative tags, for 
example, an SVT tag is considered as negative if the path from the PV to the SV 
is in a direction opposite the momentum of the tracks in the SV. MC corrections 
are then used to derive the fake rates from the negative tag rates. The TRs are 



derived separately for each one of several working points, for example, many 
top analysis use the NN output > 0.65 working point. 

There are several strategies for using 6-tagging information in top analyses. 
The standard strategy is to use the tagging rates for a particular working point. 
If only the number of b tags in each event (Ni,) is of interest the probability of 
having A^f, = 0, 1, 2, • • • is easily calculated from the TRs (e.g. ref [6]). Several 
strategies are used when it is necessary to know which jets are b tagged. One 
can randomly assign a tag for each jet: 

j^ ^ [ ti'^c if r < Pi] , , 

* \ false if r > Pi, ^ ' 

where pi is the jet's tagging probability and r is a random variable uniformly 
distributed between and 1 (e.g. ref [4]). One can use all the possible assign- 
ments of Ti values (for example "Ti true and Tj false for j > 1" is a possible 
assignment), giving each assignment a weight: 

^^ ^ =Y\fP^ if Ti is true; 

w^i.T^,-.. lis ^_^. if y. is false. ^'' 

i ^ 

(e.g. ref [5]). The latter method yields higher statistical strength, which unfor- 
tunately is often hard to calculate due to the complicated correlations between 
assignments derived from the same MC event. Instead of using the TRs, it is 
also possible to weight the MC so the tagging rates agree with data, which was 
done in ref [7]. 

Another strategy that is currently being developed is to build a semi-continuous 
b tagger using rate functions (for MC) for all working points. The main diffi- 
culty to be resolved is how to account for systematic correlations between the 
different bins. 

An unusual strategy was used to measure the W boson hclicity in top de- 
cays [12]: since the analysis is sensitive only to the kinematic dependencies of the 
TRs, and not to the overall rate, it was conceivable that the known inaccuracies 
in the simulation of the tag rate will not present a problem, as they have little 
kinematic dependence. Thus, to utilize the full background rejection power of 
the NN tagger, the highest NN outputs in the event were used as a discrimi- 
nating variable. The difference between the simulated and actual distributions 
was taken from a signal depleted sample and applied to the selected sample to 
evaluate the resulting systematics. The analysis proved to be quite insensitive 
to the missimulation, and the resulting systematic uncertainty is only 10% of 
the total systematic uncertainties. 

4 Summary and outlook 

A successful top physics program requires well understood jet energy calibra- 
tion and b tagging. In particular, the detector simulation might be a limiting 
factor. The unprecedented accuracy of DO's jet energy calibration raises sample 



dependence and detector simulation issues. In this context it is interesting to 
compare DO's and CDF's [13] "JES for top physics" experience: perhaps a well 
calibrated parametrized MC is more useful than a full detector simulation? 

References 

[I] DO Collaboration, Abazov V. M. et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A, 
565(2006)462. 

[2] Blazey G. C. et ai, in Proceeding of the workshop: "QCD and Weak Bo- 
son Physics in Run //", edited by Baur U., Ellis R. K., and Zcppenfcld D., 
Batavia, Illinois (2000), pp. 47. 

[3] http: //www-dO . fnal.gov/phys_id/jes/public_RunIIa/ 

[4] A counter example that uses also the absolute JES to specify acceptance is: 
DO Collaboration, Abazov V. M. et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100(2008)1^2002. 

[5] DO Collaboration, Abazov V.M. et al, Phys. Rev. Lett, 98(2007)181802. 

[6J DO Collaboration, Abazov V.M. et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100(2008)192003. 

[7] E.g., DO Note 5610, http://www-dO.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/prelim/TDP/T66 

[8J DO Collaboration, Abazov V.M. et al, preprint FERMILAB-PUB-08/034- 
E. 

[9] DO Note 5234 http : //www-dO . f nal . gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/prelim/TDP/T38 

[10] E.g. DO Collaboration, Abazov V. M. et al, preprint FERMILAB-PUB- 
08/062-E, accepted by Phys. Lett. B. 

[II] DO Collaboration, Abazov V. M. et al, preprint FERMILAB-PUB-08/056- 
E, accepted by Phys. Rev. D. 

[12] DO Collaboration, Abazov V.M. et al, Phys. Rev. Lett, 100(2008)062004. 

[13] Palencia E., Tools for top physics at CDF, in these proceedings; 

See also sec 3.2 in Husemann U., Monte Carlo Simulations for Top Pair 
and Single Top Production at the Tevatron, in these proceedings.